In the food industry, and particularly in the meat industry, devoted to the production and processing of beef, veal, lamb, pork, poultry, fish and seafood, there is a lack of any satisfactory method for tracking the production history of an individual product. Without such a method, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the source of problems that arise at the consumer level. There exists a long-felt but unsolved need to establish a system capable of identifying and verifying the source and origin of a food product that transcends all steps involved in the meat production process.
The consequences stemming from the absence of a satisfactory tracking method have been severe. A recent E. coli outbreak in the Pacific Northwest resulted in the deaths of several youths. USDA investigators were unable to trace the outbreak back to any point of origin. Instead, investigators had to be content with identifying nine meat processing plants that supplied hamburger meat to a national fast food chain. The actual source of contamination and the individual animal carcasses involved will forever remain a mystery. In response to the deficiencies of the present system, government officials and consumers alike are demanding that a solution to the problem be found.
The lack of a satisfactory food product tracking system also has significant economic ramifications. For example, the export market for beef to Europe has been curtailed due to the animal raising practices used in the U.S. The Europeans have established guidelines for meat production that preclude the use of hormones or other growth stimulants in the animal growing process. Significant markets for U.S. products have remained essentially closed due to the present inability to certify that animal raising practices used in the U.S. comply with stringent European requirements.
With the rise of free markets and the awareness of a global economy, a system is required that can identify food products that cross international boundaries. Health and safety regulations with respect to food products differ in various countries and a system is required that can verify the source and origin of products to ensure compliance with such varied regulations. Attitudinal barriers also exist in various countries that prevent the establishment of a true free market. For example, some Japanese have shown a preference for Australian beef as opposed to U.S. beef based upon a belief that the hygienic practices used in Australia are better than those used in the U.S. A system is required that enables the tracing back of process steps so that such concerns are addressed.
The formation of a suitable means of inventory control and identification system for food products presents several challenges. By way of example, the production cycle for some meat products takes several years. In the case of cattle, the cycle from birth to consumption may take in excess of ten years. Second, ownership of an animal may change several times before any meat product is sold to a consumer. An animal may be born and raised by one segment of the industry, grown to production weight by another, slaughtered by still another, processed by another, and finally distributed through an extensive and complex system to reach the ultimate consumer. At present, there is no suitable system in place to readily identify the chain of custody of a meat product throughout its production history.
The present methods employed in the purchasing of meat animals also presents difficulties. For example, raisers and growers of animals are paid for their production based upon live animal weight. In contrast, slaughterers, fabricators, distributors, retailers, and consumers purchase meat based upon type, quality and weight. Raisers and growers of animals are therefore not compensated based upon the lean meat content produced by the animals they raise. In the absence of any direct incentive to provide leaner animals, raisers and growers are content to accept a pricing structure that values lean animals as much as fat-ladened animals. Consumer demand for leaner meat products has had little effect on the industry practice of raising animals containing significant amounts of fat. No satisfactory method presently exists to determine the actual lean meat production of an individual animal and to compensate ranchers and growers on that basis. This deficiency in the present system rewards raisers and growers for producing products that consumers are not demanding and precludes the establishment of a compensation system that encourages better animal raising practices.
Due to the complexity of the meat production process, it is difficult for a raiser to determine the efficiency of their animal raising practices. Although information is available with respect to the genetic traits of meat animals in general, a raiser has no means of determining the actual meat production efficiency of his particular breeding program. Because animals are typically purchased on the open market, any information relating to improvements in meat production efficiency is lost due to the non-individualized production procedures currently practiced. Since no unifying means of identification presently exists, production efficiencies in various segments cannot be measured and valuable information regarding animal raising practices is therefore unavailable.
With respect to food products in general, problems have arisen relating to the tracking of chemical agents used to extend the shelf life of food products. For example, Alar use on apples, sulfite use in the wine industry, use of irradiation as a preservation method, and MSG use in a variety of food products, have created significant consumer concerns. A method is required to assure consumers that the food products they purchase and consume are free from undesired agents (or that contain an amount or level of particular agents, whether or not such agents are inherently considered undesirable) and that such foods can be verified as being produced in accordance with certain procedures.
In response to consumer demands, some producers have opted to pursue "niche" markets. These markets include, but are not limited to, natural, organic, nutritional content, health benefit, or low fat labeled products. The USDA has recognized the difficulty in certifying these claims for labeling purposes. Many of these claims could be justified if a system existed which could verify a producer's claims. With the advent of USDA guidelines for organic labels, a system is required to certify that a product has been organically produced. Such requirements, however, do not readily lend themselves to any type of verification and thus do not prevent unscrupulous producers, for example, from falsely marketing products as "organic." The USDA has recognized the difficulties involved in certifying certain claims for labeling purposes, but to date there is no satisfactory system that allows for the production process of food products to be verified.
To address the concerns as expressed above, a need exists for a consistent method of identification and trace back of food products, and particularly meat products, to ensure that the source and quality of such products can be verified.